Kerala High Court Upholds Amendment Increasing Panchayat Ward Strength, Citing Constitutional Bar on Delimitation Challenges - 2025-03-24

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Panchayat Ward Increase, Affirms Bar on Delimitation Interference

Ernakulam, Kerala - March 21, 2025 - The Kerala High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, which increased the minimum and maximum number of seats in village panchayats. Justice ZiyadRahmanA.A. , presiding over the cases, ruled that the court cannot entertain challenges to the delimitation process and amendments related to the composition of Panchayats due to the constitutional bar under Article 243O of the Constitution of India.

Case Background

The petitioners, representing various Grama Panchayats including Olavanna, Kadinamkulam, and Mangalpadi, contested the amendment to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. This amendment increased the minimum number of Panchayat seats from 13 to 14 and the maximum from 23 to 24. Petitioners argued that this amendment, implemented without bifurcating larger, more populous Panchayats, violated the principle of uniform population-to-seat ratio mandated by Article 243C of the Constitution. They contended that despite prior government acknowledgment of the need to bifurcate certain Panchayats to manage population density, the current delimitation process, based solely on increasing ward numbers, was insufficient and ineffective.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Arguments:

• The amendment fails to address the need for bifurcation of highly populated Panchayats, leading to a skewed population-to-seat ratio across the state.
• Relying on a previously issued notification (Ext.P1) that proposed bifurcating Panchayats like Olavanna, petitioners argued the government had already recognized the necessity for division based on population.
• They highlighted disparities, citing Mankulam Grama Panchayat with a low population versus highly populated Panchayats, to demonstrate the imbalance in population per ward.
• Petitioners in WP(C) No.46567 of 2024 emphasized the geographical isolation of Perumathura village within Kadinamkulam Panchayat, necessitating a separate Panchayat for better governance.

Respondents' Arguments (State Government & Election Commission):

• The State Government asserted that the decision to increase ward numbers is a policy decision within its purview and aimed at uniform application across all local self-government institutions based on population.
• They cited the constitutional bar under Article 243O, preventing judicial interference in delimitation matters.
• Referenced a recent Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor which upheld the constitutional bar in similar delimitation challenges.
• Argued that Section 6 of the Panchayat Raj Act, concerning Panchayat strength, is independent of Section 4, related to Panchayat creation and bifurcation, implying amendments to seat numbers do not necessitate prior bifurcation.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Rahman emphasized the constitutional prohibition under Article 243O, barring courts from questioning laws related to delimitation and seat allotment. He cited the Division Bench ruling in Abdul Gafoor , which affirmed this bar, and reiterated that amending Section 6(3) falls within the legislative competence of the State.

The court addressed the petitioners’ argument regarding the uniform population-to-seat ratio, clarifying that Article 243C’s proviso uses the term "so far as practicable," indicating that absolute uniformity isn't mandatory. The judgment underscored that factors like geography, population density, and terrain influence Panchayat formation and seat allocation, making perfect uniformity challenging.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment:

• "Article 243-O of the Constitution places a complete bar on the Court to entertain the validity of law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies."
• "There cannot be any dispute that consequent upon the increase of strength, the boundaries of the wards in the local authority could be altered. This alteration is the delimitation. Therefore, there is a constitutional bar for this Court to entertain a challenge to Section 6(3)."
• "Section 6 is an independent provision that specifically governs the determination of the strength of Councillors in a local authority. In contrast, Section 4 pertains to the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of a local authority."
• "The expression “so far as practicable” in Article 243C of the Constitution is very crucial, and it clearly conveys that the uniform ratio is not an absolute necessity."

Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish grounds to challenge the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the amendment and reaffirming the constitutional bar on judicial intervention in delimitation processes.

Implications

The High Court's decision allows the ongoing delimitation process based on the amended Panchayat Raj Act to proceed. It reinforces the legislative prerogative of the state government in determining the structure and composition of local self-government institutions within the bounds of constitutional provisions, and clarifies the limitations on judicial review in electoral matters, particularly those concerning delimitation. This judgment sets a precedent for future challenges to electoral processes related to Panchayat Raj institutions in Kerala.